Wakilii

Mayengo Moses v Julius .F. Bitatule (Miscellaneous Application 368 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 25 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for validation of written statement of defence filed out of time, arising from Civil Suit No. 130 of 2009 reopened after consent judgment set aside
Decision
Application allowed; defence validated; applicant granted audience to defend Civil Suit No. 130 of 2009

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court granted the application to validate the applicant's written statement of defence filed out of time. The applicant had entered into a consent settlement in 2009 believing the suit was disposed of and did not file a defence. When the consent was set aside ten years later, the applicant sought validation. The court found the applicant had sufficient reasons and was not guilty of dilatory conduct, holding that validation was necessary to ensure a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.

Outcome

Application allowed; defence validated; applicant granted audience to defend Civil Suit No. 130 of 2009

Facts

In 2009, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 130 of 2009 against the applicant. Before filing a defence, the parties entered into a consent settlement. The applicant was informed by respondent's counsel that the consent disposed of the suit and no further steps were needed. Ten years later, in 2019, the consent was set aside by Kirumira Godfrey via Miscellaneous Application No. 1165 of 2019, and the suit was reopened for hearing on merits. The applicant had not filed a written statement of defence within statutory timelines because he believed the suit was disposed of. The matter was fixed for hearing but the applicant lacked audience without a defence on record. The applicant therefore sought validation of his defence filed out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's written statement of defence should be validated or leave granted to file the same out of time

Orders

  • The Applicant's written statement of defence filed in this Honourable Court is hereby validated.
  • The costs of this application shall be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Validation of Pleadings Filed Out of Time — Discretionary Power of Court
The court has discretionary power to extend time and validate pleadings filed out of time even when statutory time limits exist, particularly where the applicant has sufficient reasons for the delay and is not guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Defence — Requirement for Audience — Effect of No Defence on Record
A defendant who has not filed a written statement of defence does not have audience in court.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Bonafide Belief that Suit Disposed Of
Where a party operates under a bonafide belief that a suit has been wholly disposed of by consent settlement and only learns of its reopening after ten years when the consent is set aside, this constitutes sufficient reason for failing to file a defence within statutory timelines and for granting leave to file out of time.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (6)

  • Tushabe Chris v Co-operative Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 08 of 2015)
  • Guliano Gariggio v Claudio Casadio (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Narittam Bhatia & Another v Boutique Shazim Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Shanti v Hindocha & Others [1973] EA 207
  • Komax Motor Vehicle Company Ltd & 2 Others v Idha Micheal (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2023)
  • Vegol (U) Limited v Godfrey Sentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 72 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Mayengo_Moses_v_Julius_.F._Bitatule_(Miscellaneous_Application_368_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_25_(30_January_2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.